but also because that is separation of church and state

Or maybe we just dont want the church involved in state matters, and we take the phrase to mean what it says instead of delving into some assumptions about the psychology of people long dead, out of some desperate need to have the bibble in schools

My dude, you can't be religious on this site. Too many Euros with opinions about how people are and how they should be. Man has always believed in men for thousands of years and because of that we're more gullible and more easily tricked then a mouse in a maze with fake processed cheese.

Europe is a religious place

It contains the Catholic capital, and the nations surrounding italy have their considerably religious proportions, it's largely a hub for this part of the world
Then if you count the UK as a part of Europe which the union does, they have their own personal religion, The Church of England, which has been around since Henry VIII established it to loosen the vatican's grip on england
Then if yo're counting that region there's also ireland, the catholic hub of the area, and this being one of the reasons behind the irish and english fighting

Not that any american has ever told people how they should live
no that's never happened

No, what you can't be on here is a selfrighteous doucehbag
THAT will get you called out

Yes there is a clear distinction
And, as far as Im aware, that is a good thing

I, don't, think, that, justifies, teaching, the, bible, as, fact, in, public, schools.

Well, To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel.

And neither is Harry Potter

The funniest part is that there's a lot of overlap between believes in the bible and believes in harry potter

I believe this is the gif you are looking for

okay?

the bible specifically states a lot of things that people can't be bothered to acknowledge

the Old testament , does not count as the bible , why don't people understand that?

The only reason christians kept the Old testament in there , was as reference material on what exactly changes in the New testament , basically to say people " this is what we used to believe , that's some top tier ******** right there innit? Read this instead m8 , this is what we believe now , Bible 2.0 if you will "

Funny, considering Christians still will use an Old Testament passage to justify their hatred of homosexuality.

yes and they're about as smart as you circlejerking neckbeards to be honest.

"Hurr, you have something negative to say about Christianity?! Yurr a neckbeard!"

How about take your unoriginal insults back to Reddit?

precisely that kind of comment is what makes me call you a neckbeard.

It's not your opinion , it's that you're being a cunt.

Our original Holy Book was **** . So we made this NEW Holy Book.

It's totally not going to turn out to be full of **** like our last super novel... right?

Do the 10 commandments apply?

Dud, those laws still apply note you still can't kill or steal a wife without getting into trouble
Not sure what Jesus said about this but I'm sure someone knows better

This is what he said:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

TL;DR, The whole Old Testimate applies

His meaning in this was to say he didn't come to rid of them, but to give them purpose.

Now we can look and understand the reason for the laws and learn and take from that, having been forgiven of the sins which would break such laws.

So in a sense, everything applies, but not directly. One should learn from the old laws and the reasons they were as they were.

"His meaning in this was to say he didn't come to rid of them, but to give them purpose"

So, you agree that all the old laws apply.

If he got rid of them we wouldn't need to think about them. He gave them purpose, meaning we should keep them in mind and why they were laws in the first place.

Laws concerning sanitary or health issues should be applied as necessary. We can eat pork because we can cook it and cure it. Same with shellfish and other things.

The laws apply but not in the same way.

show me how you come to the conclusion of your interpretation. it makes no sense.

Firstly, I should say it is not my interpretation, but what I was taught. In a class, with referencial textbooks and other resources and understandings.

While I wish I could put it so simply, it is a matter of context and understanding Jesus's message. I'm no great teacher, because I'm no expert at simple explanation of less simple things, but there are many who know more about the subject.

Here is my attempt: The Law and the Prophets refers to the old testament itself and its teachings. His statement of "I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" would not be necessary if he meant you should treat them the same.

Fulfillment of these teachings means fulfilling their purpose. When Jesus saved us from our sins, he removed the need for smiting and the like, removing the necessity of some of the laws of the old testament.

Many laws were for health, sanitary reasons, or purely ceremonial, such as the mixed fabrics one mentioned in a another comment here. Because he is fulfilling the purpose of these laws, they are no longer directly necessary, but rather for understanding why they were necessary.

He goes on to speak mentioning that anyone thinking themselves more righteous than the teachers of these laws is surely condemned. This is to say that you should not hold yourself above these laws, but understand them. If we ignore the laws, we are doomed. But if we understand the laws and keep them and their ideas then we can properly use them rather than blindly follow them.

Such examples would be that of pork, that of certain rules of women during menstruation, etc.

These laws were meant for their people, but as they are in the Laws and the Prophets, they are meant to be referred to and understood. Jesus came with a new covenant, but he does not say to ignore the old.

I hope his helps.

not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished

none of the laws change

They don't change. But we don't necessarily abide by them in the same way. Otherwise some of Jesus's teachings would contradict the old laws. Jesus himself works on a sunday, then when criticized by the pharisees, explains why that commandment was the way it was.

They don't change, and they aren't ignored. It is also hard to have a clear english translation that carries the same weight and meaning as the original text, so many of the original greek and hebrew words are translated differently, and some idioms and phrases become lost in context.

Jesus himself was "the Word" but he bore no literature or writing on his skin. There is a lot of symbolism and phrases meant to convey something beyond bare words, so I would say to keep that in mind. If you need to reference a specific passage or book, there are plenty of well written commentaries for each book, and they typically have well cited sources as well.

I hope I've helped.

Leviticus 19:19

Jesus said Leviticus was a total gaywad.

Leviticus 20:13
Make that justifiable.

In the old testament, intercourse with another man was considered a sin, and as it was a sin that was fully of one's choice, it was an abomination to the gift of life that God gave all things. There are many things in the old testament that were punishable by death, but since the new testament and Jesus's fulfillment of the old laws, these things should now be understood rather than literally followed.

Now comes the controversy. Why was it a sin? That is the question that determines whether a church accepts homosexuality or forbids it. Many argue that the sin is that a man and woman are the perfect form of relationship because of the balance of differences. Others might say it was for STDs, or that it was an act of adultery. It is the cause of much controversy, so I won't attempt to claim what is correct.

You talk like I'm supposed to know what that is.

Kill gays, no exceptions.
You are not morally responsible for the murder of them.
Your crime lies on their own hands.

Well ain't that some **** .

What about Deuteronomy 25:11-12? 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity

And yet every time I've said to a Christian that the bible is violent just like the Quaran, they'll always tell me I'm wrong.

The old testament actually sets up the "eye for an eye" principle to be a monetary thing. Many phrases you find, such as cutting off her hand, are just that: phrases.

This passage is meant to be read so that the woman pays a monetary fine, no matter her financial situation. That would be the "show her no pity" part.

Many laws and sections of the bible use phrases that need context. Such a large collection of works written so long ago and in many different times needs context, hence the writing of many commentaries that give cultural and literary context.

Yeah, no, it just means to cut off her hand. The bible is typically pretty literal, and people like you have this habit of trying to convince others that it doesn't actually mean what it says, despite being written there for everyone to see. This was a book meant for even the lowliest of people, so it wouldn't have minced words, or set up an intricate system of analogies and turns of phrase. It states what it means frankly, and what it means is cut off her hand. Try to defend it all you want, but your book is the exact same thing as the one the terrorists read. You just don't follow yours as devoutly.

It was a phrase. Pure and simple. It is people like you who do not allow for civilized discussion. Such an old and multi-era book with many cultures and genres and contexts should not be taken lightly and fully literal. Revelations is a perfect example. Lamps and desks and dragons? Imagery and symbolism, almost no literal portrayals.

Just because you don't understand the context and the use of phrases and consistent messages doesn't mean it is all literal.

Next time you try to diss a religion, please try not to get dunked on.

So you tell me it's a phrase but provide no evidence to that claim. I'm expected to believe it's a phrase just because you say it is. How about that context you spoke of? Surely there's gotta be some you can provide that would prove to me it's a phrase rather than literal. And again, a book intended for the common man to learn moral lessons from wouldn't have been flooded with complex symbolism.

www.eternalgod.org/q-a-13738/

Unfortunately I do not have a web version of any full commentaries of leviticus. There are several books if you'd like to go read one.

As stated previously, there are established points in the old testament referring to the "eye for an eye" principle as monetary, not corporal punishment. This example of "cutting off the womans hand" is no different. What would be the point in cutting off her hand?

There are also other places in the bible that do not literally mean to cut off one's hand. Matthew 5:30 states "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." This is not literal, but means that if something is a source for sin in your life, remove it. Such as a friend who steals. If this friend pressures you into such crimes, remove him as a friend. It is better to lose that friend than lose yourself to crime.

The bible was not written specifically for the common man, but was a written collection of books, many often used by elders to teach, not to just hand out. The first big wave of common use is after Martin Luther translates his bible and inadvertently starts the Protestant church. He does not rewrite it to be understood by common man, but to be read by him for the sake of discussion. He took issue with the idea that only the heads of the church understood the latin bibles of the time, and sought to change that.

Anything else, my poorly informed fellow?

ah. I see I was wrong. I'd say good debate but if I'm honest, I wasn't making solid arguments in the first place. You're much more well informed on this topic than me. Have a good day then

Thank you for understanding and keeping along. I can definitely understand frustration with people who cherry pick.

I make sure that my beliefs are reasonable and supportable, otherwise I would not believe them. Have a good day.

Yes, actually. In such a case, death and stoning was meant to rid the tribes of evil people, for by that point the parents would have tried all they could and the son would be lost in his evil ways, so they would bring him to the elders for his punishment.

Now we can look and understand the reason for this law and we have other means in place to take care of such an individual, hence a lack of need for stoning. Also, Jesus's death means that the son's sins are forgiven, which means he does not require death but rehabilitation.